44. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

GERVACIO SAGUBAN
G.R. No. 96287
April 25, 1994
Padilla, J.

Facts
While Susana Casido was at a creek in Sta. Catalina, Province of Negros Oriental, taking a bath
after she had been washing clothes, all of a sudden the accused Gervacio Saguban approached
from behind her and immediately held her two (2) hands. Saguban poked a hunting knife on
her diaphragm and hugged her. Saguban pulled and dragged Casido to a secluded place,
removed her panty and dress, inserted his penis into her vagina and had carnal knowledge with
her. After Saguban was through with the rape, he wanted to rape her a second time but Casido
was able to extricate herself from his hold and ran away. Casido, accompanied by her husband,
reported the incident. Saguban interposed the defense of alibi alleging that he was nowhere
near the place of the commission of the crime.

The trial court convicted Saguban of rape giving credence to the evidence presented by the
prosecution and completely disregarding the defense of the accused. Finally, the court a quo, in
convicting the accused, took note of the accused's previous conviction for rape in Criminal Case
No. 6353 and appreciated the same against him by making a finding that said previous
conviction of the accused showed his propensity to commit the crime against chastity.

Saguban bewails the action of the court a quo in appreciating against him his previous
conviction also for rape in another criminal case. He posits that notwithstanding the fact of his
conviction in another and earlier charge of rape, it was not an all-conclusive and infallible
deduction therefrom that he committed another rape.

Issue
Whether or not the lower court is correct in appreciating the previous conviction of the accused
as an evidence of its propensity to commit the crime.

Decision
Yes, there is no illegality or impropriety in the trial court’s action. Rule 130 provides: “Sec. 34.
Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it
may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage, and the like.”

In upholding the validity of the ruling of the lower court, the Supreme Court ruled that not only
was the previous conviction duly proved in the course of the trial but, more importantly, proof
of said previous conviction was not made the sole basis of accused-appellant's
conviction in the case at bench. Rather, it was the confluence of duly established facts —
positive identification, medical certificate, healed lacerations and body scars, as well as weak
alibi — which, together with proof of said previous conviction, all formed the basis for accused-
appellant's conviction in the present case.